United States of America v. $209,815 in United States Currency

Filing 49

ORDER re 45 Notice (Other) filed by Julio Figueroa, 46 Notice (Other) filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 6/30/2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
$209,815 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.

15
16
17

JULIO FIGUEROA,
Claimant.

18

) Case No. C 14-0780 SC
)
) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CROSS) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20

On June 3, the United States ("Plaintiff") filed its

21

opposition, ECF No. 39, to Julio Figueroa's ("Claimant") motion to

22

suppress, ECF No. 18.

23

cross-motion for summary judgment noticed for June 20, 2014.

24

No. 39, at 1.

25

requesting clarification regarding the present procedural posture

26

and scheduling for Plaintiff's cross-motion, arguing that

27

Plaintiff's cross-motion is procedurally deficient.

28

Plaintiff disagrees, and filed its own notice requesting that the

In its opposition, Plaintiff included a
ECF

On June 17, Claimant filed a notice with the Court

ECF No. 45.

1

Court direct Claimant's counsel to file his opposition to the

2

cross-motion prior to Claimant's counsel's overseas trip.

3

46.
Claimant is right.

4

ECF No.

Plaintiff's cross-motion is procedurally

5

deficient for two reasons.

First, Plaintiff noticed the cross-

6

motion for a date impermissible under the Local Rules.

7

L.R. 7-2(a) ("[A]ll motions must be . . . noticed . . . for hearing

8

not less than 35 days after filing of the motion.") (emphasis

9

added); see also Civ L.R. 56-1.

See Civ.

The fact that Plaintiff's counsel

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

did not obtain a specific hearing date for the cross-motion and the

11

motion was not "set" for June 20, 2014 does not alter this

12

conclusion. ECF No. 46, at 2.

13

several other technical deficiencies.

14

(c); 7-4(a)(2).

Second, the cross-motion contains
See Civ. L.R. 7-2(b)(3),

Because the attempted cross-motion was not "duly noticed"

15
16

under Civil Local Rule 7-1(a)(1), it is not properly before the

17

Court and Claimant is under no obligation to respond.

18

the only pending motion in this matter is Claimant's motion to

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

As a result,

1

suppress, ECF No. 18.

If the United States wishes to pursue a

2

motion for summary judgment, it is instructed to refile in a manner

3

compliant with the local rules.1

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: June 30, 2014

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court is aware that Plaintiff considers "the opposition [to
Claimant's motion to suppress] and the motion . . . factually and
legally intertwined," and that much of the brief is dedicated to
opposing the arguments Claimant raises in his motion to suppress.
ECF No. 46, at 2. This order is limited to clarifying the status
of Plaintiff's cross motion, and has no effect on the Court's
consideration of Plaintiff's brief as an opposition to the pending
motion to suppress. Nevertheless, in the future the Court will
strike portions of filings that do not adhere to the local rules.

3